The debate on illegal drugs sees what is called "harm minimisation" on one side and "Just say no" on the other.

A federal parliamentary committee has come down harder than ever on the "Just say no" side of the argument.

It has recommended the Government stop funding harm minimisation services, wants an even more graphic advertising campaign launched and proposed adopting out the children of drug addicts.

But its conclusions are already meeting a lot of criticism from the services and families that deal with these problems every day.

In the homes of families where drugs are a problem, the effects can be devastating. Whether it is the parents or the children who are abusing substances, it impacts on everyone.

Maria Podbury is a counsellor at the Moreland Community Health Service in Victoria and she has seen the realities first hand.

"Family relationships are impacted on, family well-being is impacted on and it's not just in their relationship with their drug - a dependent person, a drug user... families and parents become incredibly stressed, there's a lot of conflict, a lot of tension," she said.

Harm prevention

The Federal Parliamentary Committee on Family and Human Services has been investigating the effects illicit drugs have on families.

In releasing its report today, it found vulnerable young people are the hidden victims - with stories about children going without food, showers and school.

The 31 recommendations in the report take a tough, zero-tolerance approach to try to stamp out drug use completely.

She wants all funding pulled from treatment services that do not have the express aim of getting users drug-free - that could include needle exchange and methadone programs.

"It means that the aim of the program or the body that is getting the funding, they must have the ultimate aim of the individual becoming drug free. Not that they can perpetually be on drugs and that's okay," she said.

Coupled with that, the committee has proposed a new wave of television advertising that is even more graphic than the current campaigns.

It wants words like "harm" to be replaced by "damage","destruction" and "danger".

And the committee says the safety of children should outweigh those of drug-using parents. It wants the law changed so minors can be put into mandatory treatment.

The committee has recommended when addicts have children under the age of five, the default action should be adopting them out.

"There is this entrenched attitude in the bureaucracy [of] anti-adoption and it really has to be overturned," she said.

'Support needed'

Tony Trimingham's son died 10 years ago from a heroin overdose. He is now the CEO of the Family Drug Support organisation and he is appalled by the committee's recommendations.

"I could have actually cried this morning when I read the recommendations and some of the report," he said.

"They've ignored the pleas of families where it was said we need to keep our children alive, we need to keep them supported until they can turn the corner that they eventually need to turn."

He says he fears the worst if the committee's recommendations are implemented.

"I think there will be more death, more disease, more crime. I think families will be more sidelined," he said.

"One of the things that we face, and we stressed this in our submission to the committee, is that we face isolation and shame and stigma."

Workers on the frontline are also worried about the direction the committee is taking.

Claerwen Little, from the support service Uniting Care Burnside, says zero-tolerance will not work and what is needed is a whole family approach.

"We believe the most important criteria for funding the support agencies is about making a difference and improving the lives of the children and families," she said.

"I don't think it's helpful at all to push a particular ideological barrow in that I think people are very different and need different approaches."

The report has now gone to federal minister responsible, Christopher Pyne, who will consider the recommendations.

Moscow's words and actions — including the alleged poisoning of a former spy — are not the results of random aggression but rather fall into distinct patterns that can help us anticipate Russia's next moves under Vladimir Putin.